Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
Click here for Microsoft Word version
********************************************************
NOTICE
********************************************************
This document was converted from Microsoft Word.
Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.
All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.
Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.
If you need the complete document, download the
Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version.
*****************************************************************
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
)
)
File No.: EB-11-SE-055
In the Matter of )
NAL/Acct. No.: 201232100018
Maximum Communications Cellular, LLC )
FRN: 0019130319
)
)
Notice of apparent Liability for forfeiture
Adopted: December 28, 2011 Released: December 28, 2011
By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:
I. introduction
1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we
propose a forfeiture in the amount of thirty thousand dollars
($30,000) against Maximum Communications Cellular, LLC ("MaxCell"). As
detailed herein, we find that MaxCell apparently willfully and
repeatedly violated section 20.19(c)(3)(ii) of the Commission's rules
("Rules"). Specifically, MaxCell apparently failed to offer to
consumers the required number or percentage of hearing aid-compatible
digital wireless handset models that operate on the GSM and WCDMA air
interfaces as set forth in the Rules. These hearing aid compatibility
requirements serve to ensure that consumers with hearing loss have
access to advanced telecommunications services.
II. BACKGROUND
2. In the 2003 Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, the Commission adopted
several measures to enhance the ability of consumers with hearing loss
to access digital wireless telecommunications. The Commission
established technical standards that digital wireless handsets must
meet to be considered compatible with hearing aids operating in
acoustic coupling and inductive coupling (telecoil) modes.
Specifically, the Commission adopted a standard for radio frequency
interference (the "M3" rating) to enable acoustic coupling between
digital wireless phones and hearing aids operating in acoustic
coupling mode, and a separate standard (the "T3" rating) to enable
inductive coupling with hearing aids operating in telecoil mode.
3. In the 2008 Hearing Aid Compatibility First Report and Order, the
Commission established several deadlines between 2008 and 2011 by
which manufacturers and service providers must offer specified numbers
or percentages of digital wireless handset models that are rated as
hearing aid-compatible. The number or percentage of digital wireless
handset models required to be offered to consumers by each deadline
depends on the applicable compatibility standard ("M" rating or "T"
rating), and the deployment schedule is tailored to the size of the
service provider as measured by its number of subscribers.
Specifically, between May 15, 2009 and May 14, 2010, non-Tier I
service providers were required to ensure that at least nine handset
models per digital air interface, or at least 50% of the models
offered per digital air interface, met or exceeded the M3 rating, and
that at least five handset models per digital air interface, or at
least one-third of the models offered per digital air interface, met
or exceeded the T3 rating. Beginning May 15, 2010, non-Tier I service
providers were required to offer to consumers at least ten handset
models per digital air interface, or at least 50% of the models
offered per digital air interface, that met or exceeded the M3 rating.
Similarly, between May 15, 2010 and May 14, 2011, non-Tier I service
providers were required to offer at least seven handset models per
digital air interface, or at least one-third of the models offered per
digital air interface, that met or exceeded the T3 rating.
4. On January 17, 2011, MaxCell submitted a hearing aid compatibility
status report covering January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2010. MaxCell
identified each handset model offered to consumers in its retail
stores and on its website, www.duetip.com, and specified the model's
FCC Identification ("FCC ID") as well as the hearing aid compatibility
rating, if any. After a careful review of MaxCell's submission, the
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau referred this matter to the
Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") for investigation. As part of its
investigation, the Bureau consulted the FCC Office of Engineering and
Technology ("OET") Equipment Authorization System to independently
confirm the hearing aid compatibility rating of each handset model as
established in the grant of equipment authorization issued by the
Commission for that handset. Taking into account the
manufacturer-reported information in the OET database, we conclude
that in November and December 2010 MaxCell apparently failed to offer
the required number or percentage of handset models rated M3 or higher
that operate on the GSM and WCDMA air interfaces.
III. DISCUSSION
A. Failure to Comply with Hearing Aid-Compatible Handset Deployment
Requirements
5. We find that MaxCell apparently failed to offer to consumers the
required number or percentage of hearing aid-compatible handset models
rated M3 or higher that operate on the GSM and WCDMA air interfaces.
As noted above, the Commission has imposed varying benchmarks for the
deployment of hearing aid-compatible handsets. In November and
December 2010, MaxCell was required to offer at least six handset
models rated M3 or higher that operate on the GSM air interface,
significantly fewer than the 11 handset models it made available to
consumers without hearing loss. As set forth in greater detail in the
Appendix, MaxCell apparently failed to meet this standard by offering
only five handset models rated M3 or higher that operate on the GSM
air interface. Accordingly, we find that MaxCell apparently willfully
and repeatedly violated section 20.19(c)(3)(ii) of the Rules in
November and December 2010 by failing to offer to consumers the
required number or percentage of digital wireless handset models rated
M3 or higher that operate on the GSM air interface.
6. With respect to handsets that operate on the WCDMA air interface,
MaxCell was required to offer at least six handset models rated M3 or
higher in November and December 2010. As set forth in greater detail
in the Appendix, MaxCell also apparently failed to meet this standard,
offering only five handset models with a minimum M3 rating that
operate on the WCDMA air interface. Accordingly, we find that in
November and December 2010 MaxCell apparently willfully and repeatedly
violated section 20.19(c)(3)(ii) of the Rules by failing to offer to
consumers the required number or percentage of digital wireless
handset models rated M3 or higher that operate on the WCDMA air
interface.
B. Proposed Forfeiture
7. Under section 503(b)(1)(B) of the Act, any person who is determined by
the Commission to have willfully or repeatedly failed to comply with
any provision of the Act or any rule, regulation, or order issued by
the Commission shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture
penalty. To impose such a forfeiture penalty, the Commission must
issue a notice of apparent liability for forfeiture and the person
against whom such notice has been issued must have an opportunity to
show, in writing, why no such forfeiture penalty should be imposed.
The Commission will then issue a forfeiture if it finds by a
preponderance of the evidence that the person has violated the Act or
a Commission rule. We conclude under this standard that MaxCell is
apparently liable for a forfeiture for its apparent willful and
repeated violations of section 20.19(c)(3)(ii) of the Rules.
8. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes a forfeiture assessment
against a common carrier up to $150,000 for each violation, or for
each day of a continuing violation, up to a maximum of $1,500,000 for
a single act or failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are
required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and
gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree
of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and
such other matters as justice may require."
9. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and section 1.80 of the
Rules do not establish a base forfeiture amount for violations of the
hearing aid-compatible handset requirements set forth in section 20.19
of the Rules. The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not
specify a base amount in no way suggests that a forfeiture should not
be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that "any omission
of a specific rule violation from the ... [forfeiture guidelines] ...
should not signal that the Commission considers any unlisted violation
as nonexistent or unimportant." The Commission retains the discretion,
moreover, to depart from the Forfeiture Policy Statement and issue
forfeitures on a case-by-case basis, under its general forfeiture
authority contained in section 503 of the Act.
10. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount for violation of the
hearing aid-compatible handset deployment requirements, we take into
account that these requirements serve to ensure that consumers with
hearing loss have access to advanced telecommunications services. In
adopting the hearing aid compatibility rules, the Commission
underscored the strong and immediate need for such access, stressing
that individuals with hearing loss should not be denied the public
safety and convenience benefits of digital wireless telephony.
Moreover, as the Commission has noted, the demand for hearing
aid-compatible handsets is likely to increase with the public's
growing reliance on wireless technology and with the increasing median
age of our population.
11. We have previously determined that violations of the hearing
aid-compatible handset deployment requirements are serious in nature
because failure to make compatible handsets available to consumers
actually prevents hearing aid users from accessing digital wireless
communications. Accordingly, we generally apply a base forfeiture
amount of $15,000 to reflect the gravity of these violations. We have
applied the $15,000 base forfeiture on a per handset model basis
(i.e., for each handset model below the minimum number of hearing
aid-compatible models required by the Rules). We also impose separate
base forfeitures for each air interface over which the service
provider offers service.
12. For purposes of calculating the base forfeiture amount for MaxCell's
apparent M3-related violations on the GSM air interface, we focus on
the company's failure to offer to consumers the requisite number or
percentage of handset models with a minimum M3 rating in December
2010, when MaxCell missed the benchmark by one handset model.
Accordingly, and consistent with section 503(b)(6) of the Act, MaxCell
is apparently liable for a forfeiture of $15,000 for failing to offer
to consumers the required number or percentage of handset models rated
M3 or higher that operate on the GSM air interface in willful and
repeated violation of section 20.19(c)(3)(ii) of the Rules.
13. Similarly, the record establishes that MaxCell apparently failed to
offer to consumers the requisite number or percentage of handset
models rated M3 or higher that operate on the WCDMA air interface in
December 2010, when the company again missed the benchmark by one
handset model. Accordingly, and consistent with section 503(b)(6) of
the Act, MaxCell is apparently liable for a forfeiture of $15,000 for
failing to offer to consumers the required number or percentage of
handset models rated M3 or higher that operate on the WCDMA air
interface in willful and repeated violation of section 20.19(c)(3)(ii)
of the Rules.
14. We therefore find that MaxCell is apparently liable for a total
forfeiture of $30,000 for willfully and repeatedly failing to comply
with the hearing aid-compatible handset deployment requirements set
forth in section 20.19(c)(3)(ii).
IV. ORDERING clauses
15. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the
Act, and sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80 of the Rules, Maximum
Communications Cellular, LLC IS NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR
A FORFEITURE in the amount of thirty thousand dollars ($30,000) for
apparent willful and repeated violation of section 20.19(c)(3)(ii) of
the Rules.
16. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Rules,
within thirty (30) calendar days after the release date of this Notice
of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, Maximum Communications Cellular,
LLC SHALL PAY the full amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE
a written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed
forfeiture.
17. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument,
payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission. The
payment must include the NAL/Account Number and FRN referenced above.
Payment by check or money order may be mailed to the Federal
Communications Commission, P.O. Box 979088, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000.
Payment by overnight mail may be sent to U.S. Bank - Government
Lockbox #979088, SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005 Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO
63101. Payment by wire transfer may be made to ABA Number 021030004,
receiving bank TREAS/NYC, and Account Number 27000001. For payment by
credit card, an FCC Form 159 (Remittance Advice) must be submitted.
When completing the FCC Form 159, enter the NAL/Account Number in
block number 23A (call sign/other ID), and enter the letters "FORF" in
block number 24A (payment type code). Requests for full payment under
an installment plan should be sent to: Chief Financial Officer -
Financial Operations, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 1-A625, Washington,
D.C. 20554. Please contact the Financial Operations Group Help Desk at
1-877-480-3201 or email ARINQUIRIES@fcc.gov with any questions
regarding payment procedures. Maximum Communications Cellular, LLC
must also send electronic notification to Jennifer Burton at
Jennifer.Burton@fcc.gov, Pamera Hairston at Pamera.Hairston@fcc.gov,
and Samantha Peoples at Sam.Peoples@fcc.gov on the date said payment
is made.
18. The written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the
proposed forfeiture, if any, must include a detailed factual statement
supported by appropriate documentation and affidavits pursuant to
sections 1.80(f)(3) and 1.16 of the Rules. The written statement must
be mailed to the Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554, ATTN:
Enforcement Bureau - Spectrum Enforcement Division, and must include
the NAL/Account Number referenced in the caption. This statement also
must be emailed to Jennifer Burton at Jennifer.Burton@fcc.gov and
Pamera Hairston at Pamera.Hairston@fcc.gov.
19. The Commission will not consider reducing or canceling a forfeiture in
response to a claim of inability to pay unless the petitioner submits:
(1) federal tax returns for the most recent three-year period; (2)
financial statements prepared according to generally accepted
accounting practices ("GAAP"); or (3) some other reliable and
objective documentation that accurately reflects the petitioner's
current financial status. Any claim of inability to pay must
specifically identify the basis for the claim by reference to the
financial documentation submitted.
20. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Notice of Apparent Liability
for Forfeiture shall be sent by first class mail and certified mail
return receipt requested to Scott Widor, Chief Executive Officer,
Maximum Communications Cellular, LLC, 436 Great Oak Drive, Waite Park,
MN 56387.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
P. Michele Ellison
Chief
Enforcement Bureau
APPENDIX
Maximum Communications Cellular, LLC
Hearing Aid-Compatible Handset Model Offerings
GSM and WCDMA Air Interfaces
(M3 or higher rating)
Total M3-rated
Period Handset Handset M3-rated Handset M3
Models Models Models Required Compliance?
Offered Offered
January 5 3 Yes
2010
February 5 3 Yes
2010
March 6 4 Yes
2010
April 6 4 Yes
2010
May 1-14, 6 4
2010 At least 50% of
May of handset
15-31, 6 4 models offered
2010 or
June 2010 6 4 at least 9 Yes
July 2010 6 4 At least 50% of Yes
August 8 5 of handset models Yes
2010 offered or
September 8 5 at least 10 Yes
2010 handset models
October 9 5 (5/15/10-12/31/10) Yes
2010
November 11 5 No
2010
December 11 5 No
2010
MaxCell is a Tier III carrier serving Minnesota. Tier III carriers are
non-nationwide wireless radio service providers with 500,000 or fewer
subscribers as of the end of 2001. See Revision of the Commission's Rules
to Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems, Phase
II Compliance Deadlines for Non-Nationwide CMRS Carriers, Order to Stay,
17 FCC Rcd 14841, 14847-48 P:P: 22-23 (2002). MaxCell offers service over
the Global System for Mobile Communications ("GSM") and Wideband Code
Division Multiple Access ("WCDMA") a/k/a Universal Mobile
Telecommunications System ("UMTS") air interfaces.
47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(c)(3)(ii).
Section 68.4(a) of the Commission's Rules Governing Hearing Aid-Compatible
Telephones, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 16753 (2003); Erratum, 18 FCC Rcd
18047 (2003) ("Hearing Aid Compatibility Order"); Order on
Reconsideration and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 20 FCC Rcd
11221 (2005). The Commission adopted these requirements for digital
wireless telephones under the authority of the Hearing Aid Compatibility
Act of 1988, codified at section 710(b)(2)(B) of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended (the "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 610(b)(2)(B).
See Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16777 P: 56; 47 C.F.R.
S: 20.19(b)(1), (2). The Hearing Aid Compatibility Order described the
acoustic coupling and the inductive coupling (telecoil) modes as follows:
In acoustic coupling mode, the microphone picks up surrounding sounds,
desired and undesired, and converts them into electrical signals. The
electrical signals are amplified as needed and then converted back into
sound by the hearing aid speaker. In telecoil mode, with the microphone
turned off, the telecoil picks up the audio signal-based magnetic field
generated by the voice coil of a dynamic speaker in hearing aid-compatible
telephones, audio loop systems, or powered neck loops. The hearing aid
converts the magnetic field into electrical signals, amplifies them as
needed, and converts them back into sound via the speaker. Using a
telecoil avoids the feedback that often results from putting a hearing aid
up against a telephone earpiece, can help prevent exposure to over
amplification, and eliminates background noise, providing improved access
to the telephone.
Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16763 P: 22.
As subsequently amended, section 20.19(b)(1) provides that, for the period
beginning January 1, 2010, a wireless handset is deemed hearing
aid-compatible for radio frequency interference if, at a minimum, it meets
the M3 rating associated with the technical standard set forth in the
standard document "American National Standard Methods of Measurement of
Compatibility between Wireless Communication Devices and Hearing Aids,"
ANSI C63.19-2007 (June 8, 2007) ("ANSI C63.19-2007"), except that grants
of certification issued before January 1, 2010 under earlier versions of
ANSI C63.19 remain valid for hearing aid compatibility purposes. 47 C.F.R.
S: 20.19(b)(1). Section 20.19(b)(2) provides that, for the period
beginning January 1, 2010, a wireless handset is deemed hearing
aid-compatible for inductive coupling if, at minimum, it meets the T3
rating associated with the technical standard set forth in ANSI
C63.19-2007, except that grants of certification issued before January 1,
2010 under earlier versions of ANSI C63.19 remain valid for hearing aid
compatibility purposes. 47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(b)(2).
These requirements apply to each air interface over which service
providers offer service. See Amendment of the Commission's Rules Governing
Hearing Aid-Compatible Mobile Handsets, First Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd
3406, 3419 P:P: 35-36 (2008) ("Hearing Aid Compatibility First Report and
Order"), Order on Reconsideration and Erratum, 23 FCC Rcd 7249 (2008)
(stating that the hearing aid compatibility handset deployment
requirements apply on a per air interface basis). However, the handset
deployment requirements do not apply to service providers and
manufacturers that meet the de minimis exception. Id. at 3413 P: 20. See
also 47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(e). The de minimis exception provides that
manufacturers or mobile service providers that offer two or fewer digital
wireless handset models per air interface are exempt from the hearing aid
compatibility requirements, and manufacturers or service providers that
offer three digital wireless handset models per air interface must offer
at least one compliant model. 47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(e). Effective September
10, 2012, the de minimis exception will not be available to manufacturers
or mobile service providers that do not meet the definition of a "small
entity" beginning two years after their initial offerings. 47 C.F.R. S:
20.19(e)(1)(ii); see also Amendment of the Commission's Rules Governing
Hearing Aid-Compatible Mobile Handsets, Policy Statement and Second Report
and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 25 FCC Rcd 11167,
11180-89 P:P: 35-59 (2010).
The term "air interface" refers to the technical protocol that ensures
compatibility between mobile radio service equipment, such as handsets,
and the service provider's base stations. Currently, the leading air
interfaces include GSM, WCDMA a/k/a UMTS, Code Division Multiple Access
("CDMA"), and Integrated Digital Enhanced Network ("iDEN").
See Hearing Aid Compatibility First Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 3419
P: 35; 47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(c)(3)(ii).
See Hearing Aid Compatibility First Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 3419
P: 36; 47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(d)(3)(ii).
See supra note 8.
See supra note 9.
See Maximum Communications, Cellular, LLC, Hearing Aid Compatibility
Status Report (filed Jan. 17, 2011), available at
http://wireless.fcc.gov/hac_documents/110210/5940361_193.PDF ("2010
Report").
The FCC Office of Engineering and Technology Equipment Authorization
System is an electronic database of all equipment certified under FCC
authority. The database identifies the hearing aid compatibility rating of
each device by FCC ID, as reported by the handset manufacturer in test
reports submitted to the Commission at the time of an equipment
authorization or of any modifications to such authorization. See
http://transition.fcc.gov/oet/ea/fccid/. Although not relevant to our
findings herein, this review revealed an apparent inconsistency between
the hearing aid compatibility rating for one handset model listed in
MaxCell's 2010 Report and the rating specified in the Commission's
equipment authorizations for that model. Specifically, MaxCell indicated
that the Motorola V9x handset model (FCC ID IHDT56JR1) is rated M3/T3 when
in fact Commission records show that the handset model has an M3/T4
rating. See 2010 Report.
See supra note 13 and accompanying text.
All of the handset models offered by MaxCell operated over both the GSM
and WCDMA air interfaces. See 2010 Report.
See 47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(c)(3)(ii) (requiring non-Tier I digital wireless
service providers to ensure that beginning May 15, 2010, either at least
50% of the handset models offered, or at least ten handset models, met or
exceeded the M3 rating for radio frequency interference).
We note that while non-hearing aid-compatible handsets are technically
available to all consumers, these handsets may not function effectively
with hearing aids and can create excessive feedback and "noise." See
Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16756 P: 6 ("[D]igital
wireless phones can cause interference to hearing aids and cochlear
implants because of electromagnetic energy emitted by the phone's antenna,
backlight, or other components. This interference can be significant
enough to prevent individuals with hearing aids or cochlear implants from
using digital wireless phones and services. In addition, most wireless
phones do not internally provide the capability to inductively couple with
hearing aids containing telecoils, as wireline phones do.").
See Appendix, Maximum Communications Cellular, LLC Hearing Aid-Compatible
Handset Model Offerings, GSM and WCDMA Air Interfaces (M3 or higher
rating) (indicating that between November 1, 2010 and December 31, 2010,
MaxCell fell short of the hearing aid-compatible handset deployment
requirements by one handset model on both the GSM and WCDMA air
interfaces).
Section 312(f)(1) of the Act defines "willful" as "the conscious and
deliberate commission or omission of [any] act, irrespective of any intent
to violate" the law. 47 U.S.C. S: 312(f)(1). The legislative history of
section 312 clarifies that this definition of willful applies to both
sections 312 and 503 of the Act, H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 97-765 (1982), and
the Commission has so interpreted the term in the section 503(b) context.
See Southern California Broadcasting Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6
FCC Rcd 4387, 4388 P: 5 (1991), recon. denied, 7 FCC Rcd 3454 (1992)
("Southern California"); see also Telrite Corporation, Notice of Apparent
Liability for Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 7231, 7237 P: 12 (2008); San Jose
Navigation, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 22 FCC Rcd 1040, 1042 P: 9 (2007),
consent decree ordered, Order and Consent Decree, 25 FCC Rcd 1494 (2010).
Section 312(f)(2) of the Act, which also applies to forfeitures assessed
pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, provides that "[t]he term
`repeated,' ... means the commission or omission of such act more than
once or, if such commission or omission is continuous, for more than one
day." 47 U.S.C. S: 312(f)(2). See Callais Cablevision, Inc., Notice of
Apparent Liability for Monetary Forfeiture, 16 FCC Rcd 1359, 1362 P: 9
(2001), forfeiture ordered, Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC Rcd 22626 (2002);
Southern California, 6 FCC Rcd at 4388 P: 5.
See supra note 16.
See supra note 18.
47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(a)(1).
47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(4); 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(f).
See, e.g., SBC Communications, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC Rcd 7589,
7591 P: 4 (2002).
47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(B). The Commission has amended section 1.80(b)(2)
of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(2), three times to increase the maximum
forfeiture amounts, in accordance with the inflation adjustment
requirements contained in the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment
Act of 1990, 28 U.S.C. S: 2461 note, as amended by the Debt Collection
Improvement Act of 1996, 28 U.S.C. S: 3701 note. The most recent inflation
adjustment took effect September 2, 2008 and applies to violations that
occur after that date. See Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the
Commission's Rules, Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,
23 FCC Rcd 9845, 9847 (2008) (adjusting the maximum statutory amounts for
common carriers from $130,000/$1,325,000 to $150,000/$1,500,000); 73 Fed.
Reg. 44663-5.
47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(E). See also 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(5), Note to
paragraph (b)(5): Section II. Adjustment Criteria for Section 503
Forfeitures.
See The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section
1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, Report and
Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, Memorandum Opinion and
Order, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"); 47 C.F.R.
S:S: 1.80, 20.19.
Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17099 P: 22.
Id.
Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 16755 P: 4.
Id. at 16756 P: 5 (noting that approximately one in ten Americans, or 28
million Americans, have some level of hearing loss, that the proportion
increases with age, and that the number of those affected will likely grow
as the median age increases). See also Section 68.4(a) of the Commission's
Rules Governing Hearing Aid-Compatible Telephones, Report on the Status of
Implementation of the Commission's Hearing Aid Compatibility Requirements,
22 FCC Rcd 17709, 17719 P: 20 (2007) (noting, just four years later, that
the number of individuals with hearing loss in the United States was "at
an all time high of 31 million people - with that number expected to reach
approximately 40 million people at the end of [2010]").
See South Canaan Cellular Communications Company, L.P, Notice of Apparent
Liability for Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 20, 24 P: 11(Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf.
Div. 2008) (forfeiture paid) ("South Canaan") (finding that "a violation
of the labeling requirements, while serious because it deprives hearing
aid users from making informed choices, is less egregious than a violation
of the handset requirements because failure to make compliant handsets
available actually deprives hearing aid users from accessing digital
wireless communications."). See also, e.g., NEP Cellcorp, Inc., Notice of
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 24 FCC Rcd 8, 13 P: 11 (Enf. Bur.,
Spectrum Enf. Div. 2009) (forfeiture paid) ("NEP Cellcorp"); Pinpoint
Wireless, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd
9290, 9295 P: 11 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2008), consent decree
ordered, Order and Consent Decree, 24 FCC Rcd 2951 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum
Enf. Div. 2009) ("Pinpoint Wireless"); Smith Bagley, Inc., Notice of
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 24 FCC Rcd 14113, 14118 P: 11 (Enf.
Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2009), response pending ("Smith Bagley").
See, e.g., NEP Cellcorp, 24 FCC Rcd at 13 P: 11; Pinpoint Wireless, 23 FCC
Rcd at 9295 P: 11; Smith Bagley, 24 FCC Rcd at 14118 P: 11; South Canaan,
23 FCC Rcd at 24 P: 11.
See supra note 34.
See supra note 6.
See supra para. 5.
See supra para. 6.
47 U.S.C. S: 503(b); 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, 1.80.
47 C.F.R. S: 20.19(c)(3)(ii).
47 C.F.R. S: 1.80.
47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.80(f)(3), 1.16.
(Continued from previous page)
(continued....)
Federal Communications Commission DA 11-2080
3
Federal Communications Commission DA 11-2080